IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Tue, 04 February 2020 08:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D98B120123; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:44:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dR2frSYvYC7K; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:44:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 460B0120074; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:44:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=669; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1580805862; x=1582015462; h=subject:from:to:cc:references:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JYlMZpK2jDTEkhUoe33PGJPRcJNlmSau0imjj80GXjc=; b=ORSIJoao9lKc8W7ucllW2kXB+QcSlUw89riCOlfQOD2tdIG9dEfZtmbx pEQuyoCy66S7ynsp8qPGpWmuhP0KSwdzeM4pFD4zF465fXAAUr5K/3rEE ofgMkJWYHnUr413AkgRpgAl//xJhAp/xRajnnJgxS8NSPrTlR/e21YP+T 8=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,398,1574121600"; d="scan'208";a="20620427"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 04 Feb 2020 08:44:19 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.52] (ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com [10.60.140.52]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 0148iJ3x027454; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 08:44:19 GMT
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
To: Chris Bowers <chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Cc: lsr@ietf.org, lsr-ads@ietf.org, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
References: <122B138F-AA4F-4C7C-969C-755DF15F5744@chopps.org> <CAHzoHbtnCjqZjrxpYWhR8RTqbviOBDp1UEecXyAwu0kTZ1nLGA@mail.gmail.com> <fa7c6ef0-e6c7-3d14-41f3-0a64861e25e0@cisco.com> <CAHzoHbtVNMn1igrab-Q770v22JkdkJZXi86ZL7jfN775he3ZrA@mail.gmail.com> <86b274ad-e26b-029b-a36f-01febc03027a@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <82905f7c-cf95-322d-55ba-c3cfe497e0eb@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 09:44:19 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <86b274ad-e26b-029b-a36f-01febc03027a@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.52, ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/rfMIxxdmPHLS0ilLfPHYLQQiXUk>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 08:44:24 -0000

Hi Chris,

On 03/02/2020 14:39, Peter Psenak wrote:
>> I think a reasonable solution would be to remove the restriction
>>
>> on the N-flag to allow it to be used for non-/128 prefixes/locators.  This
>>
>> would allow the three possible prefix-SIDs states to be easily represented.
> ##PP
> right, that could be a possibility, which would allow SRv6 locator to
> have the "node" property, as locators are never /128.

do you have a use case, where the locator would need a N-flag?

I can not really think of any, so unless we have one, we better not 
define an N-flag for a non-/128 locator prefix.

thanks,
Peter

> 
> thanks,
> Peter
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email